The Download: controlling AI agents and “Super Intelligence” loyalty tests

The 2026 midterm elections are unfolding amid heightened tensions regarding the federal government’s diminished role in election security. With polls opening on November 3, state officials have largely assumed responsibility for securing the vote following nearly two years of federal program and funding cuts during President Donald Trump’s second term. This shift comes as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, scales back its operations, raising concerns about the capacity to identify and respond to foreign interference. While the Justice Department announced the largest monitoring effort in history, deploying observers across all fifty states, legal constraints prohibit these monitors from acting as sworn law enforcement officers or making arrests. The reduction in federal support has occurred against a backdrop of emerging technological threats. Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly viewed as capable of helping hackers uncover software vulnerabilities, launch cyberattacks, and spread disinformation designed to undermine trust in election results. Although most U.S. elections maintain paper records that allow for the verification of electronic tallies, officials are preparing for a wide range of scenarios, including physical threats, logistical disruptions, and legal challenges. State election officials have turned to homeland security agencies, fusion centers, police forces, National Guard units, and private cybersecurity firms to bridge the gap left by the federal retreat. CISA reduced its election security personnel and services in 2025. Additionally, federal funding for the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a critical network for sharing information among election officials, expired that year. Consequently, election officials are receiving fewer specific threat briefings and less direct technical assistance, despite CISA outlining plans in September to restore some services. A CISA spokesperson stated that the agency will provide no-cost voluntary services, such as vulnerability scanning and technical expertise, upon request. However, critics argue this is insufficient. Michael Moore, the chief information security officer for the Arizona secretary of state’s office, noted that his state has lacked a dedicated CISA cybersecurity adviser since March 2025. Moore expressed a desire for CISA to return to its 2024 staffing levels and then double them, arguing that a unified national response is necessary if facing a nation-state cyberattack. To compensate for the federal withdrawal, states have implemented various measures. In Arizona, the Department of Homeland Security has filled gaps by providing security tools and monitoring services to smaller counties. On Election Day, Arizona will convene its state cybersecurity team, National Guard, the FBI, and a representative from CISA’s Region 9 office to coordinate responses. Moore’s team has conducted years of tabletop exercises covering cyberattacks, AI-generated impersonations of officials, and suspicious packages. The state also receives threat intelligence from former CISA personnel, election security nonprofits, and officials in other states, with New Jersey often providing early warnings of emerging threats. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, observed that states have hired vendors and built their own networks, though he cautioned that they may not be able to replace all federal capabilities. National Guard deployments represent another layer of state-level security strategy. Members of the Guard in at least seven states will play roles around the elections. In Washington, approximately 100 National Guard troops in plain clothes will help monitor ballot boxes in seven counties. Governor Bob Ferguson cited the need for precautions following a 2024 incident in Vancouver where an incendiary device damaged hundreds of ballots, as well as recent reports of letters containing white powder sent to the secretary of state’s office and congressional offices. Ferguson described the deployment as routine for cybersecurity and protection purposes. In Iowa, guardsmen are tasked with monitoring and defending election networks alongside Secretary of State Paul Pate. In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis ordered the Guard to assist with election cybersecurity in June. North Carolina’s National Guard Joint Cyber Security Task Force will also monitor election networks. Despite these state efforts, public sentiment remains skeptical of military involvement in elections. A survey by the Democracy and Security Network at the German Marshall Fund of the United States found that 59 percent of 2,800 polled Americans believe the president should not use the federal military to monitor or administer elections. Loren Voss, a researcher on the survey, noted a generalized fear of federal interference, whether through the National Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the FBI. She argued that using the Guard for what should be a civilian mission risks damaging public confidence in the military as an institution. Federal law generally prohibits armed personnel from being stationed at polling locations unless a site is under attack requiring federal force. However, the trend of governors calling on Guardsmen for cybersecurity and support has grown, with at least 14 states using them in 2022 and 15 in 2024. Disputes over the conduct of federal monitors have already emerged. The Michigan Attorney General’s Office contacted the Justice Department after receiving reports that departmental monitors were speaking with poll workers in Dearborn and Flint. These actions were deemed outside the scope of their duties. A federal judge has ruled that monitors cannot be sworn law enforcement officials or make arrests. Legal challenges may prolong fights over election results even after polls close. Meanwhile, candidates are betting that AI regulation will sway voters, and tech investors are watching the results with apprehension. The midterms thus serve as a test for both the resilience of state-led security frameworks and the political impact of AI governance debates.